Video: “Prometheus” trailer

posted at 9:07 pm on March 19, 2012 by Allahpundit

I posted the first trailer back in December but that was half as long and essentially impressionistic. It looked amazing but it was hard to tell what the story was about. It was all about setting a mood, the mood being “if you liked ‘Alien’ and ‘Blade Runner,’ you’re going to wet your pants when you see this.” Four months later, here’s the full-length trailer — and it looks more amazing than the first one did. But, at first blush at least, it does feel a bit derivative. That’s not unexpected, as this flick was originally intended as a prequel to “Alien” that ended up going off on its own tangent, but between the guy convulsing on the table here, the voiceover of someone yelling “cut it off!”, and the requisite scenes of astronauts probing alien goo, you’re left wondering if something’s going to burst through someone’s chest in this one too. Or maybe that’s the point — to goose all the “Alien” fans with hints of a familiar form of terror and then throw them a curveball in the actual plot. Ah well, doesn’t matter. It’s Ridley Scott doing sci fi. You’re going to go see it.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

The ambiguity is part of the whole film noire genre he was trying to evoke with Blade Runner.

lexhamfox on March 19, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Exactly.

That’s part of the genius of Blade Runner. Scott didn’t make a point of trying to answer every single question. You leave the movie still asking them.

But that said, the real power and influence of Blade Runner is in its aesthetic. There had been nothing like it before, but there has been a lot like it since. It confounded expectations when it was released – and being up against E.T. and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, two much more conventional sci-fi/action films – didn’t help, either. But there’s a reason it’s become a cult classic in the years since.

Points well-taken. Still, I don’t necessarily feel it’s an undue bit of RETCON to posit that there would be a difference between a well-funded research expedition and the interstellar equivalent of a tramp steamer. Nostromo could very plausibly be depicted as lagging well behind the bleeding edge of tech and ergonomics, using the most robust and comparatively primitive tech to preserve the –likely rather thin– profit margins.

By the way, IIRC, John Cobb was on the design team for “Silent Running,” as he was for “Alien.” Too lazy to check right now, though…

Nostromo could very plausibly be depicted as lagging well behind the bleeding edge of tech and ergonomics, using the most robust and comparatively primitive tech to preserve the –likely rather thin– profit margins.

Noocyte on March 20, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Exactly. The tech of one does not undermine the tech of the other. Although a much different film, the level of tech in Alien3 is far behind the Nostromo yet is ~50 years ahead.

AFAIK, that is not answered in the film in any way and only in speculation outside of it. I agree on the original. Has that version ever made it onto DVD? In the past, the only way to see it was on the Criterion LD version.

roy_batty on March 20, 2012 at 9:50 AM

It’s not been answered, apparently.

I don’t know if the original version is on DVD. I was only able to get the director’s cut. Shame, really.

Naturally, I like your screen name. I use “your” picture as an avatar on another bulletin board community to which I belong.

Totally off-topic, but has anyone seen the trailer for Tim Burton’s “Dark Shadows”? Looks rather amusing, actually. Not at all like the original series and the re-make, which were melodramatic at best. In case anyone is interested:

Actually, at least according to Scott, the answer to this question is known. Like I said above, the film is peppered with other hints, such that it feels pretty settled to me. YMMV, I suppose, but, Like I said above, I quite like the idea that Deckard is a skin job.

The more interesting question, IMHO, is whether his boss knows this (as Gaff clearly does)…

Actually, at least according to Scott, the answer to this question is known. Like I said above, the film is peppered with other hints, such that it feels pretty settled to me. YMMV, I suppose, but, Like I said above, I quite like the idea that Deckard is a skin job.

The more interesting question, IMHO, is whether his boss knows this (as Gaff clearly does)…

Noocyte on March 20, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Yeah, he who controls the past controls the future…..

I’ve never bought the unicorn angle though despite Scott’s admission. The only curious bit in the film regarding who’s who was in the below exchange -

Bryant: There was an escape from the off-world colonies two weeks ago. Six replicants, three male, three female. They slaughtered twenty-three people and jumped a shuttle. An aerial patrol spotted the ship off the coast. No crew, no sight of them. Three nights ago they tried to break into Tyrell Corporation. One of them got fried running through an electrical field. We lost the others. On the possibility they might try to infiltrate his employees, I had Holden go over and run Voight-Kampff tests on the new workers. Looks like he got himself one.

Roy Batty
Leon
Zora
Pris
Mrs. Replicant (Fried running through an electrical field or is it Rachel thrown in the list?)
Mr. Replicant ( Is it Dekard bundled in with the rest by Bryant or an unknown one who’s demise is never detailed?)

The count is never quantified and likely the agent for this debate, decade after decade. That Gaff would have insight into Dekard’s mnemonic programming from Tyrell and thus the unicorn angle would be pretty amazing don’t you think?

Not sure if anyone’s still looking at this thread, but I just found this. Now, mindful as I am that a claim of objectivity is frequently a demand for obedience, and that one’s interpretation of art is at least as important as the artist’s {conscious} intent, nonetheless this seems to put the question of that intent to bed.

Yah, I’d often wondered at the replicant count question, wondering if it was a mere continuity error, or another hint. What if Deckard was captured with the replicant who was fried (?), and reprogrammed with new memories (Holden’s? Gaff/s?!)…

Anyway, it is the mark of superior art that it continues to support speculation and rumination like this. I can only hope that Prometheus delivers on this level as well.

The great Tyrrell hadn’t designed me, but whoever had, hadn’t done so much better. ‘You’re programmed too,’ she told me, and she was right. In my own modest way, I was a combat model. Roy Batty was my late brother.